In addition to the general requirements relating to matters of political or industrial controversy or current public policy, the Act requires that any news, given in whatever form, must be presented with due accuracy and impartiality.
Reporting should be dispassionate and news judgements based on the need to give viewers an even?handed account of events. In reporting on matters of industrial or political controversy, the main differing views on the matter should be given their due weight in the period during which the controversy is active. Editorial discretion will determine whether a range of conflicting views is included within a single news item or whether it is acceptable to spread them over a series of bulletins.
Private newspapers and TV channels refuse to carry antiwar messages on their own property: CENSORSHIP! 1984! John Ashcroft!
Government agencies use force to block a pro-war TV channel: YAY!
The hypocracy of the left never ceases to amaze me.
It's a good thing we have government-supported bodies to tell us what 'The News" is. Makes it so much easier, and you get to stop thinking. And we all know the government never lies about its actions, of course.
Especially when the slogan of your channel is "We Report, You Decide" which in and of itself says they will be unbiased.
Yes, of course, not censorship but protection. I believe that is exactly the same argument Christian fundamentalists use when they want to censor nekkidness.
Only a couple of days ago, mefi user "bureaustyle" used the word censorship on Wal-Mart's decision not to sell certain magazines on its own property.
And, its fairly safe to assume that if the creationist vs. Darwinism issue made national news, both sides of the argument would be represented.
When you don't agree with the viewpoints expressed by an entity, the proper thing to do is revoke that entity's ability to communicate in toto.
And here's another thing to chew on: In hindsight, most of the "pro-U.S." (and pro-Britain, I might add) reporting during the war turned out to be far more accurate (i.e., "truthful") than many other outlets, including the BBC.
Let's say the US government funds the MPAA and that the MPAA has the power to require complaince with its decisions.
We'd all be ok with the MPAA deciding that R rated films were no longer acceptable to protect our children from images of violence and sexuality.
This wouldn't be censorship because the MPAA is an independent organization?
No. Who says there's a credible opposing view? Who says there's just one opposing view?
« Older Walton Ford, 1,2,3: Nature Boy.... | De Niro non disputandis est... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt